Member since: Thu Mar 16, 2006, 03:07 PM
Number of posts: 9,500
Number of posts: 9,500
- 2016 (81)
- 2015 (77)
- 2014 (87)
- 2013 (145)
- 2012 (211)
- 2011 (14)
- December (14)
- Older Archives
Dam Breaks in LA; City of Herbert and nearby prison mandatory evac
Sunday Mar 13, 2016 · 11:41 PM EST
Writing on phone so keeping it brief:
Residents in the town of Hebert are being told to evacuate by the Caldwell Parish Sheriff.
This is a mandatory evacuation.
According to the National Weather Service, a dam in Richland Parish broke, and the water is heading straight for the Caldwell - Richland Parish line.
Posted by FourScore | Sun Mar 13, 2016, 11:58 PM (9 replies)
This may be a dupe, and I apologize if it is, because it is a few days old now. My teenage son said it's all over his facebook page right now, so I thought I'd share. HILLARIOUS!!!
Posted by FourScore | Fri Mar 11, 2016, 12:41 PM (44 replies)
I am an avid Bernie supporter, but I genuinely enjoyed reading this DK diary about Hillary. I thought I would share it with my fellow DU'ers who support her. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
I Was Aquainted With Hillary Many Years Ago
Thursday Mar 10, 2016 · 4:34 PM EST
Hillary photographed for Vogue 1989
This is not going to be a long or political diary. I just wanted to be a character witness for Secretary Clinton, whom I was lucky to be aquainted with in Arkansas in the 1980s. I used that picture above because that is how I remember her. Of course no one ever looks quite as good as when they are photographed by Vogue.
My husband and I lived in Arkansas for about 15 years during the late 70s and into the early 90s. During that time he had some minor business with the Rose law firm. He also became a supporter of the Governor and then President Clinton. We became aquainted with the Clintons and attended many events they attended. Though we were not wealthy, we donated what we could and gave of our time.
Hillary was warm, gracious and funny. She always seemed to have a crowd of people around her laughing and if Bill were not near her, he often glanced over and smiled. The times I spoke to her she paid attention to what I said and she always remembered my name and asked about my family.
If there were children present. she played with them, joked with them and then spoke to them like adults. You could tell that she genuinely loved them and was concerned with their lives.
I don’t know if Hillary would remember me. I no longer live in Arkansas. My husband died quite a few years ago and I do not have the means to travel in those circles anymore. But I remember her. I have the greatest regard for her. I do not recognise the person that people describe when they call her a liar and a corporate shill or a murderer.
Regardless, I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic party. I just hope with every fiber of my being that the nominee is Hillary Clinton. Some day I will write a diary/blog giving more detail than “awe hell, I like her so much”.
Now I ask you to be kind and not come here with anything hateful to say about her, as I will not say anything hateful in a Bernie diary, about him.
Thank you for reading:
Posted by FourScore | Thu Mar 10, 2016, 09:09 PM (11 replies)
Someone at reddit broke it down:
(I highlighted Bernie to make it easier to scan this and see who is who.)
SPEAKING AND INTERRUPTION TOTALS (from 6:50 pm Pacific to end)
Hillary total: 1409 sec or 23:29 | interrupted 10 times (not including clarification/follow-up)
Bernie total: 1071 sec or 17:51 | interrupted 25 times (not including follow-ups)
Started timing at 6:50 pm Pacific
H - 1:40 uninterrupted
H - 1:42 uninterrupted
B - interrupted at 0:34, interrupted 0:40 (interrupted 5 times) | 1:30 total
H - interrupted at 0:30 | 1:11 total
B - interrupted at 0:15, and 0:30 seconds | 0:32 total
H - interrupted at 0:20 | 0:30 total
B - applause at 0:15, interrupted by mod at 25 seconds | 0:31 total
H - (not her turn) Interrupted at 2 seconds, 5 seconds | 0:40 total
B - (response to her response), interrupted at 10 seconds | 0:10 total
H - interrupted at 1:40 for reiteration of question and applause | 3:08 total -- ignoring applause and mod questioning time
B - (30 sec response), interrupted at 30 seconds and 35 seconds| 0:42 total
B - Career politician question | 1:24 total
H - Latino jobs, (but talked about Climate change?), interrupted at 1:33, 2:17 | 2:17 total
B - Response, interrupted at 0:30 | 1:23 total
B - ‘Free’ college (including his clarification up top), interrupted at 0:42 | 1:29 total
H - Ph.D student/loans | 1:20 total
B - Response (I said it before her) - whispers on mic on this question, interrupted at 0:42, 0:58 | 0:58 total
H - Response (quote bailout quote got money), interrupted at 0:49 | 1:02 total
B - Response, interrupted at 0:32 (by mods and Hillary) | 0:32 total
H - Response | 0:49 total
B - Response, interrupted at 0:42 | 0:45 total
B - Climate change, interrupted at 0:52 | 1:29 total
H - Climate change (bi-partisan specific), interrupted at 1:12 (by mods, Bernie told to speak) mod at 1:42 again | 2:00 total
B - Response, interrupted at 0:42 | 0:42 total (not equal to Hill’s overtime like told)
H - E. Warren question (also economy?), interrupted at 1:33 | 1:33 total
B - name mentioned response, interrupted at 0:34, 0:41, 0:47 | 0:57 total
H - Castro question | 1:39 total
B - Cuba follow-up, interrupted at 0:35 | 0:35 total
B - Castro video, interrupted at 1:19 (for follow-up question), 1:28, 2:08 | 2:08 total
H - Puerto Rico debt (also an addition to BS’s video), | 1:33 total
B - Response (overthrowing foreign gvmt/PR), int at 0:40 | 0:50 total
H - (Supreme Court) | 1:19 total
H - (Closing statement) | 1:06 total
B - (Closing statement) | 1:14 total
Posted by FourScore | Thu Mar 10, 2016, 02:19 AM (44 replies)
We are witnessing history in the making. Bernie wanted to energize voters, and he succeeded in Michigan!
Thank you, Bernie!! Thank you, Michigan!!
Posted by FourScore | Wed Mar 9, 2016, 12:01 AM (13 replies)
This post was first posted in GDP, but got locked as off-topic. Reposting in GD
Posted by FourScore | Tue Mar 8, 2016, 10:47 AM (1 replies)
Turnout Records Drive Bernie Success
Monday Mar 07, 2016 · 12:43 PM EST
I wrote about the turnout differences once before. Here is an update on turnout vs. results. I have some notes on these results below. I believe in disclosure. I’m a Sanders supporter, but i’m also a full on supporter of numbers and intelligent discussion of those numbers. I’m not running any fancy stats here just looking at top-line data.
* There is a direct correlation between turnout and who wins.
* Bernie has set new turnout records in multiple states including I believe Colorado, Kansas, Maine, and Minnesota. Note that these are all caucuses. Not a single primary has seen increased turnout this primary season. There are just three primaries where turnout drops were less than 20% and one was Vermont. The other two were New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Bernie performed well in all three.
* For Hillary, she wins Massachusetts plus every state where there is a turnout drop greater than 20%. But the margins do not correlate directly to turnout like they do with Bernie. Even if you remove the caucuses, her biggest margins roughly start in Alabama and spread outward. The further north and west you get the margins drop. From Louisiana to South Carolina margins are 40+. But once you hit Texas, Tennessee, and even Arkansas margins drop into the 30s. The further you get away from there she has won by smaller margins.
Overall, I believe that the general electorate is deflated but that the activist base is inspired by Bernie. How do I draw those conclusions?
* Primaries are consistently lower in turnout. Primaries involve higher participation from the general electorate while caucuses tend to focus more on your serial voters and active Democrats.
* The only states where Bernie has invested resources and turnout saw a greater than 20% drop-off were Iowa and Nevada — both early on and both caucuses. So there is (not surprisingly) a correlation between where Bernie invests resources, turnout, and ultimately his success.
* All four states where turnout increased from 2008 were huge Bernie wins. And they were all caucuses. Caucuses naturally attract serial voters, party activists, and NGO activists as noted above.
Hillary has a distinct primary advantage due to her name recognition. It appears as Bernie spends more time organizing and advertising in a state and his name recognition goes up — so does turnout and so do his results. It’s a good sign that Bernie is spending a lot of money — but that he is doing so with results.
Some notes on the data itself:
* Data is from NY Times and is based on delegates or votes reported. What is reported varies by state.
* We are still awaiting results from 1 precinct in Nebraska and 53 precincts in Maine. I expect they will all overwhelmingly favor Bernie. The 1 precinct in Nebraska is in Lancaster County (Lincoln) and that county went for Bernie by 23.4%. And based in informal results, Maine has gone for Bernie in all but two locations thus far.
* Turnout is compared to 2008. It’s really the only year we can compare to since we haven’t had any other competitive primaries go until June (Thanks Hillary!). But there are some caveats. 2008 was a record breaking year for turnout. So while we have set some new turnout records, it shouldn’t be shocking that turnout is not up everywhere.
Posted by FourScore | Mon Mar 7, 2016, 02:49 PM (4 replies)
Secretary Clinton, Please Specify Which Republican Speech Transcripts We Are Still Waiting For
Monday Mar 07, 2016 · 11:48 AM EST
Ever wonder what these two say to each other? Or why one of the most evil people in the world seems so happy to see her?
Last night at the Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton was asked yet again about the transcripts of her Wall Street speeches. And once again she made the spurious claim that she will release those transcripts when ALL candidates release theirs, including the Republicans.
Of course Bernie pointed out she’s only running against him in the Democratic Primary, and once again released the full text of all his paid speeches to Wall Street. There aren’t any.
But poor Hillary. She’s being singled out here. She says it’s not fair to ask her to release hers until all the Republicans release theirs.
But here’s the thing that’s bothering me and I’m not sure why no moderator has thought to bring it up:
Which Republicans candidates still in the race gave paid speeches to Wall Street firms to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop?
For that matter, which Republican candidates gave paid, closed door speeches to Wall Street at all?
I’ll admit, I’m not the greatest investigative reporter in the world but I spent the better part of an hour googling away trying to find incidents of Rubio, Cruz, Trump and Kasich giving lavishly rewarded paid speeches to Wall Street.
I found all kinds of shady dealings. As you may know, Kasich worked for Lehman Brothers up until the crash and they’re among the worst of the worst as far as the crash goes. But having a job somewhere is a bit different from just randomly showing up, giving a speech and walking away with 10x the average median salary in this country when you’re done.
Rubio is in on the grift game. Down in Florida he landed himself a guest “professor” gig teaching a couple of classes occasionally to the tune of $69,000 a year. But still, that’s for “work” that is at least noble on the surface, though it galls me that adjuncts make about 1/5 of that for the same work when they actually know what they are doing. But then again, it’s not just one speech, classes are taught in public (students should even be taking notes!) and he got about 1/10 of what Clinton gets for ONE SPEECH.
Ted Cruz, it turns out, got some shady loans from Goldman Sachs. And he doubled down by not adequately reporting them or something. Hell, I’m not sure how taxes are supposed to work myself so I don’t get super worked up about that. But again, this was a LOAN that in theory he’ll have to pay back (and if it’s Goldman it will be paid back with lots of interest—so a Cruz net loss). So again, not really in the realm of closed door speeches where you get half a million per.
Of course there’s also Donald Trump. But Trump lives his whole life in front of cameras. He tweets out half-formed thoughts as fast as he can halfway form them. He’s got lots of shady deals going on all over the place but from what I can tell, he’s never given closed door paid speeches to big Wall Street companies for which he was compensated half a million dollars a pop.
So what paid speeches to Wall Street made by Republican candidates are we talking about? Because I can’t find any.
And there’s probably a good reason I can’t find any. If you’re currently IN Congress or the government generally, it’s ILLEGAL for you to accept that kind of money from groups that lobby Congress.
Of course Clinton defends herself with the claim that she was a “retired” politician when she made all that money. That’s why what she did is technically legal. But more than half of that money came from groups that actively lobby Congress and here’s the problem:
To be sure, there is nothing illegal or improper about a retired politician giving a speech. Ex-government officials hit the speaking circuit and write memoirs all the time. Clinton’s predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, earned $150,000 for some of her speeches after her four years as Secretary of State under Republican President George W. Bush.
“The idea of leaving office and giving speeches is not new. What’s new is that you may come back to office,” Noble said. “If she had retired after being Secretary of State, there’d be much less issue with it.”
Does anyone believe Hillary Clinton was really and truly retired? Is there anyone who ever doubted that she would run in 2016? Certainly other big name Democrats always thought she would run since none of them made a serious effort to get into this primary. But there she was taking all of that money that would have been illegal if she were still in the government all the while knowing she was going to attempt to get back in. (Hopefully we can still stop that from happening) That’s a major problem for those of us who care about getting corruption and money out of politics:
Critics argue that the harm comes from the perception of improper influence rather than from textbook-definition corruption.
“Some of the damage is already done,” said Larry Noble, a former counsel to the Federal Election Commission and a current adviser to the reform-minded Campaign Legal Center. “It undermines the credibility of our elected officials. Let’s say she becomes President and she takes a position that is pro-Wall Street. Even if she in her heart of hearts believes it’s the right way to go … people won’t believe it.”
So let’s sum up.
Hillary says she will #releasethetranscripts when all the other candidates release theirs.
We already know Bernie has none.
I can’t find any paid, closed door speeches at anywhere near half a million a pop by current Republican candidates Cruz, Rubio, Kasich or Trump.
Therefore, unless someone can find what I could not, all the Wall Street speeches by other candidates are already out there.
Your turn, Secretary Clinton.
Posted by FourScore | Mon Mar 7, 2016, 01:19 PM (1 replies)
DEMOCRATIC DEBATE: The "Excuse Me" Heard 'Round The World
Monday Mar 07, 2016 · 1:56 AM EST
Bernie Sanders wouldn't have had to utter the now infamous admonition--complete with hand in the air--had moderator Anderson Cooper done his job and actually told Hillary Clinton (politely) to shut up when it wasn't her turn to speak.
She did it repeatedly all night--and it was not prompted by excess enthusiasm. It was calculated. She continued to talk--even introducing a new topic--more than once even after Cooper had repeatedly called time. She did it to be sure she always had the last word. We should all take note of this strategy as it is a reflection of how Hillary Clinton regards the rules: they don't apply to her.
Despite her best efforts, however, Bernie Sanders won on substance and because of that Hillary's sycophants in the mainstream media were scrounging for something to criticize. They seized on the fact that he was "mean " and spoke to her in a "tone."
The subject took up considerable time on post-debate media forums and seemed to concern these reporters more than the substantive policy differences we heard about, notably:
*That despite claiming to want to keep jobs in America, Clinton never met a Free Trade deal she didn’t like.
*That there is no excuse for inaction when children’s health is involved (focusing on the issue of lead pipes in Flint and elsewhere).
*That it wasn’t the job of middle class taxpayers to fund the Wall Street bailouts.
*That there is no such thing as “super predators”—only teens living in poverty who need education and jobs—something the wealthiest nation in the history of the world should be able to secure for them.
*That while we must close NRA-sponsored loopholes in our gun laws, appealing to the emotions of gun control activists is irresponsible if a candidate promises to draft or support laws that are on their face, essentially illegal. (Such as holding the manufacturers of legally sold and licensed firearms responsible for the actions of those who purchased them.) (Though I despise the tactics of the NRA, in this instance Id’ liken Clinton’s suggestion that gun manufacturers and/or dealers be held liable for tragedies like Sandy Hook—an action she claims would bring people to the table to negotiate tougher gun control laws—to holding Ford liable if some nut plowed into a playground full of children in his Explorer. It would not make people safer drivers.
*That despite Sanders’ offer to release the text of every speech he’s ever made to corporations (exactly zero) she STILL refuses to disclose the content of her paid (at $200K+ a pop) speeches made to private meetings of Wall Street contributors. (She claims she’ll release her content when the Republicans also disclose. Sanders rightly pointed out that she’s not running against the Republicans in the primary, she’s running against him—score one for the good guys.)
*One cannot serve two masters, so we need campaign finance reform if we are ever to have a truly democratic electoral process. And Sanders made the point well: corporate executives didn’t get where they are by throwing money away. If politicians were not influenced by Wall Street donations, corporations would not be spending millions to support campaigns.
I may have more to say later, but for now, let me say just one thing about tonight’s debate etiquette (or lack thereof) and full disclosure—it includes a personal confession: When a person routinely interrupts, refuses to respect polite and generally accepted boundaries, and quite obviously angles to always speak last whether it's her turn or not--she needs and deserves to be shut down.
So I say this now as a woman, and as someone who is frequently guilty of the very same conversational sins myself: when you interrupt, speak out of turn or talk over someone, it's really bad form to then cry "poor me" and accuse (by indirect means through minions) the other person of being a bully, or imply that their justified reaction (borne of frustration with your bad behavior) is somehow a fault of theirs.
Hillary Clinton employed a debate tactic tonight (not for the first time since this process began) that is all too common among seasoned debaters and courtroom litigators: do whatever you can to make sure that your opponent never lands a blow or gets the last word. Make sure that his words won't have a chance to settle in the minds of listeners, or the substance of his facts have time to resonate. It’s a tool for those who are short on facts or weak on substance.
She executed it (interrupting the flow of his remarks as often and as best she could) with pinpoint precision. And alleging "sexism" when asked to abide by the rules is especially cheap. I am not surprised. I just wish the media doing the debate postmortem had exercised more objectivity in their analysis. And to Secretary Clinton, a word to the wise: vilifying an opponent through your media grapevine after displaying contempt for debate rules is no way to win votes--at least not mine.
Posted by FourScore | Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:36 AM (21 replies)